Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 166

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5‐fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX‐6) as first‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

Ducreux, Michel, Bennouna, Jaafar, Hebbar, Mohamed, Ychou, Marc, Lledo, Gérard, Conroy, Thierry, Adenis, Antoine, Faroux, Roger, Rebischung, Christine, Bergougnoux, Loic, Kockler, Leila, Douillard, Jean‐Yves·2011·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

A regimen consisting of 5‐fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX‐6) is widely used in France in the first‐line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The aim of our study was to demonstrate the non‐inferiority of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus FOLFOX‐6 for this indication. Patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX or FOLFOX‐6 for 6 months. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) in the per‐protocol (PP) population; however, progression‐free and overall survival (OS), time to response and response duration were also assessed. A total of 306 patients were enrolled (XELOX n = 156; FOLFOX‐6 n = 150). ORR was 42 and 46% with XELOX and FOLFOX‐6, respectively, in the PP population. The difference between groups was 4.7%; the upper limit of the unilateral 95% confidence interval (14.4%) was below the non‐inferiority margin of 15%. In the intent‐to‐treat population, median progression‐free survival was 8.8 months with XELOX and 9.3 months with FOLFOX‐6, and median OS was 19.9 and 20.5 months, respectively. XELOX patients had significantly more grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12% vs. 5%) and diarrhoea (14% vs. 7%), but significantly less grade 3/4 neutropenia (5% vs. 47%), febrile neutropenia (0% vs. 6%) and neuropathy (11% vs. 26%) than FOLFOX‐6 patients. We conclude that XELOX is non‐inferior in terms of efficacy to FOLFOX‐6 in the first‐line treatment of MCRC, but has a different toxicity profile.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.25369

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 166

Metadata

Authors
Ducreux, M., Bennouna, J., Hebbar, M., Ychou, M., Lledo, G., Conroy, T., Adenis, A., Faroux, R., Rebischung, C., Bergougnoux, L., Kockler, L., & Douillard, J.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-27
Volume
128
Issue
3
Pages
682-690
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W2093252674
Cited by
166
References
1
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5‐fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX‐6) as first‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.25369
The paper
Ducreux, M., Bennouna, J., Hebbar, M., Ychou, M., Lledo, G., Conroy, T., Adenis, A., Faroux, R., Rebischung, C., Bergougnoux, L., Kockler, L., & Douillard, J. (2011). Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5‐fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX‐6) as first‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25369

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.